That organization (and I have to say a lot of other organizations) get no money from me. And the hungrier they are for the green the more ignorant the claims they come up with, some of them.

But that makes Global warming an even worse problem doesn’t it:

1. Obama can’t fix it without our help;

2. All these people who could be helping are wasting their energy thinking of stupid things to say to raise money.

To spend your time thinking or talking about what you can not do to help mankind Is a waste of your brain and the time you could be spending doing something worthwhile..
There is more that you CAN do than you can ever do.
Just make sure that whatever you do now does not make life worse for someone else later on.

Would you set out to debate whether the picture of the Texas sky is more real than the sky? Or the clouds? Or the light that shines on the sensors in my camera?

They are real. They are not comparable things, but you can not debate which is more real. They are all real.

Would you set out to debate whether philosophy or science is more true?

They are both true. Philosophy is a true method of trying to understand the reality of the creation of which we are a small part. Science is a different true method. We can use one method or another method, but if we want to know as much as we possibly can, we will use both methods and add up the results. Because these methods are different, they tell us different truths.

And if you can’t see anything outside your own discipline, then you will never learn anything you don’t already know.

Changing the subject, loss leaders, asking the wrong question. The purpose of any of these so-called debates is to avoid discussing the issue. The debate about whether or not torture is torture is probably a lot of fun for some people. It allows us to get all excited about something that is not the issue. The issue is that:

1) All high government officials take an oath to support the constitution of the United States of America, and

2) The constitution of the United States of America declares the President and other high officials are required to honor the treaties and agreements of our country, and

3) Torture is a war crime and a crime in the United States of America, both because we agreed to honor the Geneva Convention, and because torture is a crime in the United States of America. It has nothing to do with whoever we don’t like or why we are at war.

Without the rule of law we have no United States of America. Under the rule of law, people must be held responsible for what they choose to do. Otherwise, there is no rule of law. Torturing is illegal. Nobody forced anybody to torture. It’s not possible to force anyone to torture other people.

When we choose to break the law, we know what the consequences are. We make that choice freely and accept the consequences, or we change the law — first and legally.

There is nothing to debate here.

But if we live in a culture where only two human values remain — winning, losing — then of course no discussion is possible and nothing is left to us but the mini-wars of fake debates. And we have shackled our souls to the shame and denial of our own abusive behavior.

Heartland Institute, the same people who think tobacco is not harmful and who apparently do not believe in evolution are now using evolutionary “evidence” (and other assertions) to claim that human activity does not cause global warming (perhaps it’s a normal oscillation of the sun).

When I want reliable information on a subject, I look to how the source handles facts, and when I run across a statement such as: “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate” (and several similar statements quoted in Wikipedia the source of which has apparently been removed from the web) — ZAP — crossed him off my list. Perhaps that is his opinion, but it can not be a documented fact because there is no way he could know.

Or perhaps Wikipedia is wrong, so let’s look further. Heartland’s evidence is presented at a conference that includes speakers on climatology, paleoclimatology, politics and economics. I think economics may be the key word here.

And why does all of this irritate me? After all, they might conceivably be right. Stranger things have happened. Not many, but – – –

It irritates me because we — we who are doing all this — we are biological organisms feeding upon the earth, and so I wonder why it is that we so seldom hear BIOLOGISTS invited to discuss the impact of biological organisms upon the earth ecosystem? We ask climatologists, economists, physicists, politicians and the man on the street, none of whom really understands how ecosystems function. But biologists seem to be excluded from the general conversation. I wonder why that is? (Disclaimer – I am a biologist.) So maybe that is the real reason I am irritated.

But really — why? The power question so often involves the word why.

Do you suppose they are trying to deflect our efforts away from their turf?

The most common way to do this is to argue about the wrong question, so let’s think about the assertion they are trying to debunk — that human activity is causing global warming. Politically and economically, that is the wrong question. It’s not important to the icebergs or the polar bears (or other biological organisms, that is us) whether or not global warming is a normal oscillation. The political and economic question is — what should we do about it. So clearly whatever we should do about it in some way threatens their power base. What could that be?

Are they trying to draw our attention away from the FACT that there is a limit to the amount of available carbon energy that we can mine? And they don’t want to let go of their monopoly? Or are they afraid to talk about the problem of overpopulation?

Too many people; not enough oil. Facts. No matter what causes global warming, sooner or later we will have to deal with these facts. The sooner we deal, the more power we have to deal with.